COLGATE PALMOLIVE PHILIPPINES vs.

Ople

Facts: CPSU filed a Notice of Strike with the Bureau of Labor Relations on ground of
unfair labor practice consisting, among others, of dismissal of union officers/members.
After efforts to amicable settlement failed, MOLE, upon petition of petitioner assumed
jurisdiction over the dispute pursuant to Article 264 (g) of LC.

Petitioner argues that the dismissal of Sayson, Reynante and Mejia from the employ of
the company were carried out pursuant to the inherent right and prerogative of
management to discipline erring employees; that based on preliminary investigation
conducted by the company, there appeared substantial grounds to believe that they
violated company rules and regulations necessitating their suspension pending further
investigation; that the company sustained damages resulting from the infractions
committed by the three salesmen, and that the final results of the investigation fully
convinced the company of the existence of just causes for the dismissal of the three
salesmen

Minister rendered a decision which found the three salesmen, "not without fault" and
that "the company has grounds to dismiss them. At the same time Minister directly
ordered the reinstatement of the three salesmen to the company on the ground that the
employees were first offenders. Subsequent MR was denied. Hence, present case.

Issue: WoN Minister committed a grave abuse of discretion when he ordered

reinstatement of the three salesmen despite his finding that there was just cause to
dismiss them.

Ruling: Yes. The order of the respondent Minister to reinstate the employees despite a
clear finding of guilt on their part is not in conformity with law. Reinstatement is simply
incompatible with a finding of guilt. Where the totality of the evidence was sufficient to
warrant the dismissal of the employees, the law warrants their dismissal without making
any distinction between a first offender and a habitual delinquent. Under the law,
respondent Minister is duly mandated to equally protect and respect not only the labor
or workers' side but also the management and/or employers' side. The law, in protecting
the rights of the laborer, authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the
employer. To order the reinstatement of the erring employees would in effect encourage
unequal protection of the laws as a managerial employee of petitioner involved in the
same incident was already dismissed and was not ordered to be reinstated. In the case
of San Miguel Brewery vs. NLU "an employer cannot legally be compelled to continue
with the employment of a person who admittedly was guilty of misfeasance or
malfeasance towards his employer, and whose continuance in the service of the latter is
patently inimical to his interest."